Paramount Thinks That Louis CK Making $1 Million In 12 Days Means He's Not Monetizing

from the does-anyone-take-these-people-seriously? dept

One of the more annoying things about debates on copyright law, is that when we talk about alternative business models that do not rely on copyright, some people feel the need to insist that this means making less money -- or, even, making no money at all. There is just this assumption that an alternative business model means something along the lines of "give it away and pray," when nothing could be further from the truth. Yet this kind of thinking is so ingrained, that even in stories of artists making a ton of money, some maximalists simply assume that they're not making any money. We saw this recently in the comments to one of our recent posts about Jonathan Coulton which talks about how he made $500k last year -- at which point, someone said that such examples are useless since no one will pay.

It appears that Paramount's "Worldwide VP of Content Protection and Outreach" Al Perry also fits into the same unthinking mode. We've already discussed Perry's recent talk to Brooklyn Law School, but there was one section that caught my eye and deserves a separate post. It comes right at the beginning:
Perry opened by noting that one has to articulate a problem before seeking to solve it, and he refers to the problem as “content theft.” He pointed out that copyright law gives creators the right to monetize their creations, and that even if people like Louis C.K. decide not to do so, that’s a choice and not a requirement.
Now that seems bizarre and totally unsupportable. Remember, Louis CK made over $1 million in just a few days -- an amount that he admits was much higher than what he would have received just for a straight up performance. In what world does going direct-to-fans, building a good relationship, automatically mean no money made at all? Not the one we're based on.

Filed Under: al perry, jonathan coulton, louis ck, monetization
Companies: paramount

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), 16 Apr 2012 @ 7:58am

    There's Paramount's way of looking at the world and there's reality. The two don't seem to intersect anywhere along the line.

    One of the best ways of minimizing a threat to an individual's (or corporate) way of looking at the world is to deny that it's happening at all and if it is that it can't possibly be successful. Corporations get the additional "benefit" that they can propagandize their view to anyone that will listen or, even better, legislators.

    Al Perry won't go "off message" because that would upset all the lobbying the *AA's have done to convince Congress critters and other legislators around the world that the end of the "content" world is nigh even if there are examples like Coulton's and Louis CK's. Even if it works for those two it can't possibly for anyone less well known. Even worse, they're giving up the "protection" of copyright even if they aren't completely giving it up.

    Denial and propaganda can be powerful things, sometimes, even if the face of reality. For the "content" industry we've reached the point where it isn't working anymore on the citizenry and public so now they want to pick their audiences. Legislators and those likely to become legislators like lawyers.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.